Clinton on Fox News

[Tim McFatridge]

Hey guys did any of you see former President Clinton on Fox News over the weekend? I did not get to see the whole interview but what I did see was great tv. He was being interviewed by Chris Wallace and got very upset that Chris Wallace had the nerve to ask him why he did not do more to catch or kill Bin Laden when he had the chance. He then went on to explain that he did everything in his powers to kill Bin Laden but failed. He says that this current adminstration had 8 months to catch him or kill him and did nothing. He also said that he got a lot closer to killing him than anyone else in this adminstration ever has. He then went on to accuse Chris Wallace of conducting a conservative hit job for Fox News and made a couple of comments about Chris Wallace sitting there with a smurk on his face and smug look. Chris Wallace just kinda laughed and asked him if he has ever watched his show? If so then he would know that he ask tough questions of everyone.
Sorry guys I can not get the link to work but you can go to www.foxnews.com and watch the video.

[Dim Wit Moc]

You could tell Clinton wanted to deck Wallace. His body language was extremely aggressive. The finger jabbing really stepped over the line. How many of us would have put up with this from anyone not respecting our personal space? With Clinton's charisma and expert use of language (didn't inhale, did not have sex with that woman) he could have used verbal judo to knock Wallace down a peg or two. He also tied into his staff for "setting him up with the right wingers". His considerable language skills were not used and he ended up looking like an out of control jerk. Not befitting for an ex-President.

[Tim McFatridge]

I agree Mike. Hey if any of you get the chance go to www.time.com and read the article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is a good interview titled " A date with a Dangerous Mind." There are several good articles in there one is titled "What War with Iran Would Look Like."

[osopardo]

The real bottom line...is that we need to start paying attention to being Americans, and knock off the partisan squabbles and party-line politicking.

And along those lines, we need to start proactively disenfranchising irrelevant has-been buffoons like Clinton. We can start by not paying any attention to him or giving him access to mass-media venues where he can continue insulting our intelligence with his self-promoting drivel. He represents an embarrassing period of our history, best not forgotten, but certainly left behind. He has nothing constructive to offer but he will continue offending our sensibilities with his never-ending attempts to "build his legacy" as long as we let him.

[grappler-jordan]

Look, I was not a fan of Clinton's, but he was my President. I didn't like that he took illegal money from our enemies to run a campaign. I didn't like the fact that he thought Exxon's deal for Caspian oil was more important than taking Osama when the Sudanese offered him up to us. I didn't like that he tried to take away my guns. There were plenty of things about Clinton I didn't like. But you know, I have to respect him and his office - his administration while it was his. That office holds with it pressures that none of us here on this board will ever understand, and the fact is (just like I tell others about Bush), I don't have the same information that he did, and I can't say with any certainty that I would not have made the same calls if put in his place, under the same pressures, with the same information. I like to think I'd have done it differently, but I can't know that. So beating him up about it is really no different than the guys who are always attacking Bush. It's empty and uneducated. When I said we need to focus on being American and knock off the party and partisan B.S., I didn't mean that everyone should just turn Conservative. I meant that we need to focus on what's best for the nation in terms of security, economy, education, energy, environment, and freedoms, no matter who offers up the solutions. We need to be making a really big deal out of good ideas; celebrating them regardless of what party they came out of. Until we realize that party control means precisely squat against the enemies of this nation, we'll keep planting the same seeds and standing around hoping something different will grow. That's insanity...

Well said.

[gregimotis]

Well said.

+1

..................

[osopardo]

Mike,
This thread began with the question, "did any of you see former President Clinton on Fox News?" That's what I was responding to.

And my response to that can only be; "Who cares?!? Does he have anything at all of any value whatsoever to contribute to any topic of current events? Or is he just taking yet another opportunity to agrandize himself?"

We have a long and rather valuable tradition of former presidents becoming elder statesmen, experienced couselors and information resources to the current administration. What did Clinton contribute during this (or for that matter any other interview) which could be of any use or value to us?

Yeah, I watched it. I had hoped to see something a bit more substantive. But all I got was the same old self-justifyin' ever lyin' mistifyin' sack o' bovine fecal product. Just look at the impression he made on Dim Wit Moc (second post of this thread); charisma? perfect use of language? verbal judo? Naw, son, down heah we call that lyin'! That's the kinda impression he typically makes, 'cause most of us really ain't as stupid as he thinks we are.

BTW, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to be unified in our hearts and minds as a nation. Clinton, however, is the very embodiment of divisive partisanship.

[gregimotis]

I didn't see the interview, but there was an analysis in the paper on just this subject this morning.
A couple of points made there are obvious but bear mentioning;

The Clinton administration made some attempts to get Bin Laden but wanted to avoid 'collateral damage' (that's code for killing civilians). Obviously in retrospect, we know he should have bombed anybody he had to in order to get that guy and everybody around him, but his reasoning was pre-9/11. Similarly, the current administration could have tried harder to get Bin Laden, also. Bush said it himself, as a matter of fact right after the bombings '9/11 changes everything'.
Everybody knew Bin Laden was an enemy, but he didn't become THE enemy until he pulled off an almost unbelievable scenario.


Also, when discussing Clinton, recall that he is not retired from politics until his wife has run her course. His 'elder statesman' term doesn't start until then... heck, Carter wasn't much of a president, but he turned out pretty good after the fact. Clinton might too.

[grappler-jordan]

Thanks for the neg rep for agreeing with Mike's post jubaji....

[osopardo]

he only gets that wound up when he's wrong Same body language, same tone. Yup.

yup, yup, yup!

[osopardo]

LOL - I got pos-repped for my post. Thanks J!

[Tim McFatridge]

Greg, you have to remember that Clinton could have had Osama bin Laden in 1996 when the Sudan government offered him up to us but Clinton did not want to take him. When Clinton was interviewed and questioned by the 9/11 Commission he went on record and said " In 1996 the Sudan government contacted the United States and asked us to take Osama bin Laden into custody and to hold him in this country. Now at that time Osama had not committed any crimes against the United States I did not feel that I could rightly hold him since he had committed no crimes against this country. I then got on the phone and pleaded with Saudi Arabia and asked them to take him but they felt he was a hot potato and did not want to fool with him and thats how he ended up in Afghanistan." He then went on to say that he always knew that Osama was a bad man and had bad intentions for this country and he knew that the United States needed to do something to stop him. He also says that he felt an obligation to protect this country but had to do it in a way that was legal. Later he says that his administration contracted with people to kill him or to capture him but was unsuccessful. When he was questioned further by the commission about why he did not do anything if he honestly felt that bin Laden was a threat to this country or the rest of the world Clinton again exploded and went off on the commission for having the nerve to question what he did while President.
I wil ltry to find that audio and post a link in the thread.

[gregimotis]

Greg, you have to remember that Clinton could have had Osama bin Laden in 1996 when the Sudan government offered him up to us but Clinton did not want to take him....

I Didn't know they actually had him at one point, wow. No wonder he's so defensive about it.

[Tom Yum]

I believe the only thing he did to attack Osama Bin Laden was fire a couple of Tomahawk Missles into some cities like Kabul. Did that stop terrorists or win over the hearts and minds of locals?